Supreme Court case information

Listed below are the substantive Supreme Court cases for the year along with appeals still to be determined or cases awaiting hearing. 

Information giving an overview of the case is included along with media releases and links to judgments being appealed when available.

All 2024 - 2014 Supreme Court cases dismissed or deemed to be dismissed where a notice of abandonment was received can be found here.

Transcripts for cases heard before the Supreme Court are included provided they are not suppressed. Transcripts from pre-trial hearings are not published until the final disposition of trial. These are unedited transcripts and they are not a formal record of the Court’s proceedings. The Ministry of Justice does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material and recommends that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use.

19 June 2026

Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB) 

All years

Case name
Chesterfields Preschools Limited (In Liq) and Therese Anne Sisson v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 91/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s decision putting Chesterfields Preschools Ltd into liquidation.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted on one ground only (Sisson v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2017] NZCA 326).  
B The approved question is whether the conditional order of the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first applicant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing should be quashed and replaced with an unconditional order.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D We make no award of costs.
 _____________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order made by the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing, subject to the condition that within 15 working days of the Court of Appeal judgment, the second appellant pay into the High Court at Christchurch the amount of $109,675.22, is quashed.
C In its place we make an order setting aside the order putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing.
D There is no order as to costs.
23 November 2017
High Court decision
THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED (IN LIQ) [2015] NZHC 2667 [29 October 2015]
Court of Appeal decision
SISSON v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZCA 326 [28 July 2017]
Leave judgment - leave granted
CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZSC 168 [16 November 2017] (PDF, 250 KB)
Substantive judgment
CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZSC 176 [23 November 2017] (PDF, 204 KB)
Case name
Christopher Duncan Baker and Kathryn Ann Baker v Wallace Douglas Hodder, Ann Adele Hodder and Kadd Farm Limited
Case number
SC 94/2017
Summary
Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the appeal was moot and that separate leave to appeal the High Court cost awards was required.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Baker v Hodder [2017] NZCA 355).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have heard and determined the applicants’ appeal to that Court.  17 November 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is allowed.  
B The order made under s 174 of the Companies Act 1993 against the appellants is quashed.
C The respondents must pay the appellants costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
D We quash the costs orders made in the High Court and Court of Appeal.  Costs should be re determined in those Courts in light of this judgment.

22 August 2018
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
HODDER v BAKER [2016] NZHC 2384 [6 October 2016]
Court of Appeal decision
BAKER v HODDER [2017] NZCA 355 [3 August 2017]
Leave judgment - leave granted
BAKER v HODDER [2017] NZSC 171 [17 November 2017] (PDF, 183 KB)
Substantive judgment
BAKER v HODDER [2018] NZSC 78 [22 August 2018] (PDF, 128 KB)
Case name
Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde and Arthury William Taylor v The Attorney-General of New Zealand, The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and The Electoral Commission
Case number
SC 102/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Electoral Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 268(1)(e) entrenches only that part of s 74 which relates to the age for registration as an elector – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 80(1)(d) is not directly or indirectly discriminatory and does not involve a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Result
A  The application for leave to appeal is granted on the question of whether the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 purported to amend an entrenched provision of the Electoral Act 1993 and thus required a 75 per cent majority to be passed.
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
C  There is no costs award.
6 December 2017
________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
14 December 2018
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
WILLIAM TAYLOR & ors v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2016] NZHC 355 [4 March 2016]
Court of Appeal decision
NGARONOA v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2017] NZCA 351 [17 August 2017]
Leave judgment - leave granted
HINEMANU NGARONOA, SANDRA WILDE, AND ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZSC 183 [6 December 2017] (PDF, 194 KB)
Substantive judgment
HINEMANU NGARONOA & ORS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ORS [2018] NZSC 123 [14 December 2018] (PDF, 632 KB)
Case name
Auckland Council v Wendco (NZ) Limited and Wiri Licensing Trust
Case number
SC 14/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991, s 95E – Whether the Court of Appeal interpreted the phrase “related to” in s 95E too broadly – Whether the first respondent is an affected person in terms of the second respondent’s application for resource consent. [2015] NZCA 617  CA 379/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Wendco (NZ) Ltd v Auckland Council [2015] NZCA 617).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Auckland Council was required to give Wendco (NZ) Ltd notification of the resource consent application made by the Wiri Licensing Trust.
16 June 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Peters J reinstated.
B Costs in the High Court are to be fixed in that Court.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal are to be fixed by that Court.  
D In this Court, the first respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $10,000 and the second respondent costs of $5,000 along with, in both instances, reasonable disbursements.
17 July 2017
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 1481 [27 June 2014]
Court of Appeal decision
WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2015] NZCA 617 [18 December 2015]
Leave judgment - leave granted
AUCKLAND COUNCIL v WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED [2016] NZSC 67 [16 June 2016] (PDF, 9 KB)
Substantive judgment
AUCKLAND COUNCIL v WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED [2017] NZSC 113 [17 July 2017] (PDF, 368 KB)
Case name
Graham D’Arcy-Smith v Natural Habitats Limited
Case number
SC 19/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Employment Court erred in determining that the applicant was not an employee – Whether the Employment Court erred in not addressing a matter argued by the applicant.[2015] NZEmpC 123  ARC 57/14
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay costs of $500 to the respondent.
28 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GRAHAM WILLIAM D'ARCY-SMITH v NATURAL HABITATS LIMITED [2016] NZSC 46    28 April 2016 (PDF, 109 KB)
Judgment appealed from
GRAHAM D'ARCY-SMITH v NATURAL HABITATS LIMITED NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 123    28 July 2015
Case name
C v The Queen
Case number
SC 23/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury.[2016] NZCA 48  CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015
Result

A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

14 July 2016

____________________

Judgment released                                                                                              

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final dispositon of related trials of Appellants C (SC 23/2016) and L (SC 24/2016). Publication in Law Report or Law Digest permitted.                                                                                                                       

19 June 2017                            
Leave judgment

not publicly available
Judgment appealed from

JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ not electronically available
Case name
AL v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury.[2016] NZCA 48 CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015 
Result

A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

14 July 2016

____________________

Judgment released                                                                                              

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final dispositon of related trials of Appellants C (SC 23/2016) and L (SC 24/2016). Publication in Law Report or Law Digest permitted.

19 June 2017                       
Leave judgment

not publicly available
Judgment appealed from

[2016] NZCA 48 CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015 not available
Case name
SL v The Queen
Case number
SC 25/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury  [2016] NZCA 48  CA 162/2015
Result

A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

14 July 2016

__________________________

A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed dismissed.
31 March 2017
Hearing

21 and 22 November 2016

William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and McGrath JJ
Judgment appealed from

[2016] NZCA 48 CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015 not available
Case name
JBG  v The Queen
Case number
SC 27/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury. [2016] NZCA 48  CA 160/2015
Result

A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

14 July 2016

____________________

Judgment released                                                                                              

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final dispositon of related trials of Appellants C (SC 23/2016) and L (SC 24/2016). Publication in Law Report or Law Digest permitted.                                                                                                                     

19 June 2017                            
Leave judgment

 not publicly available
Judgment appealed from

 [2016] NZCA 48  CA 160/2015 not available
Case name
JPC  v The Queen
Case number
SC 28/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury.[2016] NZCA 48  CA 145/2015 
Result

A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

14 July 2016

_____________________

Judgment released                                                                                              

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final dispositon of related trials of Appellants C (SC 23/2016) and L (SC 24/2016). Publication in Law Report or Law Digest permitted. 

19 June 2017                            
Leave judgment

not publicly available
Judgment appealed from

[2016] NZCA 48  CA 145/2015 not available
Page 12 of 17